1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JONATHAN LOTT, Case No. 21-cv-08128-HSG

8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 9 v. DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 10 CRAIGE KOENIG,

11 Respondent.

12 13 Petitioner, an inmate housed at California Training Facility – Central in Soledad, 14 California, filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. 15 His petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to

and Rule 4 of the 16 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner’s request to 17 proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 2. 18 DISCUSSION 19 A. Standard of Review 20 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 21 custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in 22 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

(a); Rose v. 23 Hodges,

(1975). A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing 24 the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the 25 application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.”

. 26 B. Petitioner’s Claims 27 Petitioner was convicted on March 1, 2001 of possession of a firearm with prior 1 years to life. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Petitioner argues that his controlling offense is possession of a 2 firearm, making him a non-violent offender, and therefore eligible for a parole hearing pursuant to 3 Proposition 57. He alleges that his due process rights were denied when he was denied eligibility 4 for early parole consideration pursuant to Proposition 57 based on the state’s “untrue statements” 5 that Petitioner is currently incarcerated pursuant to a reinstated life sentence for a prior conviction 6 of attempted premediated murder, and that the state’s arguments ignore the relevant state laws and 7 the abstract of judgment. He seeks a declaration from this court that he is a non-violent offender 8 and eligible for early parole consideration pursuant to Proposition 57. Dkt. No. 1 at 4, 7-11. For 9 the reasons set forth below, this petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED for lack of habeas 10 jurisdiction. 11 C. Dismissal 12 “‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a 13 petition for habeas corpus,

, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 14 Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended,

. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or 15 to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547

, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close,

(2004)). Habeas is the 17 “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier release’” from 18 confinement. Skinner v. Switzer,

(2011) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544

(2005)); see Calderon v. Ashmus,

(1998). Where the prisoner’s 20 claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought under § 1983.’” 21 Skinner, 561 U.S. at 533-34 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). The Ninth Circuit clarified that 22 if the claim “does not lie at the ‘core of habeas corpus,’ it may not be brought in habeas” and may 23 only be brought under

. Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016) 24 (en banc) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487); see also Ramirez v. Galaza,

(9th 25 Cir. 2003) (“habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful 26 challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence”). 27 Here, habeas jurisdiction is lacking because success on Petitioner’s claim would not 1 ensure Petitioner a parole hearing; it would not require Petitioner’s immediate release from prison. 2 || Petitioner must still be found suitable for parole before he may be released from prison. Because 3 Petitioner’s claim falls outside the core of habeas corpus, his only potential recourse in federal 4 court is to file a § 1983 complaint. See, e.g., Skinner, 561 U.S. at 533-34. 5 The Court DISMISSES this petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of federal habeas 6 jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new civil rights action 4 asserting his challenge to the denial of a parole hearing pursuant to Proposition 57, if he believes g that such denial violates either the United States Constitution or federal law. 9 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

10 The Court concludes that no “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right [or] that jurists of reason would find it

2 debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 E B U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. CONCLUSION 5 15 For the reasons set forth above, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED, and 16 a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner filing a 5 7 new civil rights action challenging the denial of a parole hearing pursuant to Proposition 57. The 5 18 Clerk shall send Petitioner two copies of the civil rights complaint form and close the file. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 2/11/2022 71 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28